Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Kumbaya,
He could have not used irony but then a direct approach would not have been satisfactory to you either. Brother Benson is direct almost always and I’m certain you would appreciate that even less. Yet, if a minister were to not speak about something the Lord lays on his heart then he would be useless.Drake
|
Aside from my point below about neither of us being able to know what he REALLY meant- I feel to address this first part of your post too, I apologize for picking it apart! I just feel this needs to be pointed out.
Being "direct" is fine- but it's totally relative. I just saw a quote today (there are many versions of it) from Timothy Keller....
"Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in a way that we cannot really hear it."
I don't bring this up to have a debate with you about what Brother Kangus REALLY meant.
But, if he was MORE direct- to the point of being cruel and without love, then you're right-I would have a problem with it. So would Jesus.
Being "direct" shouldn't contradict what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 13:1-7 (I admit, I had to look it up, but it's such a good passage and it came to mind)
I'm sure you agree in theory, but I think it's important to remember that Brother Kangus is not above sin or unhealthy personal biases/indoctrinations. None of us are.
I don't think it's preposterous to say that there have been some "off color" statements in the history of local church meetings that many could be offended by. Also, you can be aware of this and also give grace to people who may have been a part of those offenses.
My point is, you seem very defensive of Mr. Kangus.